October 6, 2025 • 26 mins
Hosts Jim Connelly (@jimmyconnelly), Derek Schooley (@derekschooley), and Ed Trefzger (@EdTrefzger) review games of the weekend and news of the past week.
The opening weekend of the college hockey season was highlighted by notable matchups like Penn State at Arizona State, Minnesota vs. Michigan Tech, Quinnipiac's victory over Boston College, and the Colorado College vs. UConn series.
They also delve into the hype around CHL player Gavin McKenna's debut, the evolving competitive landscape, and the impact of high-profile games being broadcast on major networks. The hosts also detail the NCAA's new Power Index (NPI), which replaces the PairWise for selecting the national tournament field, and examine its implications.
The opening weekend of the college hockey season was highlighted by notable matchups like Penn State at Arizona State, Minnesota vs. Michigan Tech, Quinnipiac's victory over Boston College, and the Colorado College vs. UConn series.
They also delve into the hype around CHL player Gavin McKenna's debut, the evolving competitive landscape, and the impact of high-profile games being broadcast on major networks. The hosts also detail the NCAA's new Power Index (NPI), which replaces the PairWise for selecting the national tournament field, and examine its implications.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Usccho dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Welcome to us.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
CHO Weekend review for Monday, October sixth, twenty twenty five.
I met Trevsker alongside Jim Connolly and Derek Schooley. Gentlemen,
we're back together again for.
Speaker 4 (00:27):
Unlucky you guys, Lucky you guys. I'm just impressed. Jimmy
looks like half of a person.
Speaker 5 (00:33):
What a what a great look that he's got with
his weight lots journey.
Speaker 4 (00:39):
Congratulations Jimmy.
Speaker 6 (00:40):
Yeah, hey, that's nice to say. But I'm just excited
to see pucks and some skating and so some great
hockey we go, and we've got plenty of it this weekend.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
The season started, the puck dropped with one of the
biggest matchups at a Top twenty matchup right in the
first weekend, and also maybe a preview of college hockey
post COCHL eligibility and the series that was on everybody's
docket and for a lot of people watching on NHL
(01:13):
Network had Penn State at Arizona State, and that really
didn't disappoint. I was watching on Friday night and you
see Gavin McKenna get assists on the first two goals
and things were getting pretty excited.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Number five.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
Penn State had to come back though both games in
the third period. They were down three to two on
Friday one sixty three and came back to win four
to two on Saturday. And McKenna got the game winning
goal on the power play on Saturday along with those
two assists on Friday, and also saluted the student section
(01:49):
at Arizona State. So it looks like he's going to
be fun on the ice and kind of that peripheral
stuff too.
Speaker 5 (01:56):
I think the one thing that we I don't unders
think that we understood how big this is going to
be for college hockey. That's the one like YouTube, NHL Network,
basically a whole pregame show on the NHL Network about it,
the hype, all of that, and this was really really
(02:18):
good for the college hockey game. Obviously, everybody's got their
opinions on the CHL coming into NCAA.
Speaker 4 (02:25):
It's not going away. So this hype was huge.
Speaker 5 (02:29):
Over thirty plus NHL scouts there to watch the one game.
I mean, if you're a bottom level team, you should
have probably had two guys there. I mean, this is big,
and this is the hype that college hockey's gonna get
and that we want, But does it really signify some
classes in college hockey. That's the scary thing because does
(02:52):
that make the top up here in the bottom down there?
Speaker 4 (02:55):
And that's the scary thing of the hype of this. Yeah,
I agree with.
Speaker 6 (02:59):
You their schools, But I feel like that's the conversation
we've been having for five years now, and we keep saying, oh, well,
this is really going to.
Speaker 4 (03:07):
Favor the big schools. It's really going to favor the
big schools.
Speaker 6 (03:09):
Let's just go back to who's won the national championships
in the last few years, not the big school So
maybe we can take another step back and say this
is great for college hockey. But I still think we're
going to have a competitive product out there. I loved
watching the Gavin McKenna show Friday and Saturday night, and
I got I didn't work on Saturday, so I had
the whole night to watch that game. What an awesome
(03:33):
just the whole presentation of you know, NHL Network giving
its studio support, putting their guys between periods, not just
going to NHL stuff between periods. I thought that that
proves that college hockey has just arrived on a whole
new level.
Speaker 7 (03:47):
That it was last season. That's a great thing.
Speaker 6 (03:49):
Hey, the product is awesome, you know, watching a guy
like Gavin mckenner out there watching Ryder Ritchie at Boston University.
Speaker 7 (03:59):
These are guys, these are name players now.
Speaker 6 (04:02):
That are in college hockey that we might not have
seen a few years back. This is the best product
we have seen in a long time.
Speaker 5 (04:10):
Is this the biggest debut since Paul Korea, Jack Eigel?
Speaker 4 (04:16):
I mean, this is there. You're talking superstars, and.
Speaker 6 (04:19):
I think I think Igles a really good comp there,
you know, and he he had all of that. Maybe
Aiden h mattlan Celabrini too, but even I don't I
don't know that he had the same hype that m
McKenna comes with something different because he's the first, because
he is the first high profile CHL player to leave
(04:40):
that league come into college hockey. That's what makes him
so special. And it's really going to touch fire, and
we saw it this weekend.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
The one thing that was disappointing to me, and I
saw a lot of chatter about it on social media,
was the technical quality of the broadcast. The camera wasn't great.
It was kind of too bright and washed out. That's
something that needs to be work done, because I know
there are NHL quality broadcasts being done in college hockey,
(05:11):
and I don't know if they had a problem that
evening or what that was the only thing. And maybe
that's nitpicking a bit about what was really exciting hockey.
And let's not overlook that Arizona State's a very very
good team too.
Speaker 6 (05:24):
You know, I want to address the first part that
you said there at and I actually see a positive
from the CHL and mckennay and stuff like that, and
these big steps forward that college hockey is going to take.
Speaker 7 (05:37):
It's going to force more schools to invest.
Speaker 6 (05:41):
It's what we saw at smaller schools in college football
and basketball ten years ago when streaming became big in
schools then invested tons.
Speaker 4 (05:51):
Of money into making sure that their streaming product was good.
Speaker 6 (05:54):
Because eyeballs are out there now, If eyeballs are going
to be on their hockey games that are SLASH on
an online channel like NCAC dot TV, because that broadcast
is going to be simultast on a national network, I
think that that can just up the product more. I
think everything we have just seen in one weekend, I
(06:16):
don't know that I've come away from the first weekend
of a college hockey season feeling dispositive about the growth.
Speaker 4 (06:22):
Of the sport and the scheduling.
Speaker 5 (06:25):
How do you have the Penn State schedules are done
so early and this would have just been a regular schedule.
Imagine if Smith wasn't sick. I mean, this could have
been even a big, bigger event. I mean, that's where
it's gone. College hockey's in for a one year.
Speaker 4 (06:43):
I think.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
Well, another big game, a big series over the weekend
had number eight Minnesota hosting Michigan Tech. The Golden Gophers
had to come from behind to win on Friday, couldn't
do it. On Saturday, Tech got the upset five to three,
with the final four goals scored by Michigan Tech. First
(07:04):
win in Michigan Tech for Bill Muccault. I guess good
stuff for Michigan Tech. And maybe maybe the Gophers ought
to be a little anxious.
Speaker 6 (07:16):
They easily could have been swept in that weekend series
right there. You know, there were good things that I
think Bob Monscro's team did this weekend, but that easily
could have been a sweep if it wasn't for a
good third period on Friday night and in Saturday. You know,
I think that Minnesota just believed that they would be
able to make that same comeback again on Saturday night,
(07:40):
and that's when when Bill McColl's team just locked down.
Speaker 4 (07:43):
I thought that that third period they played was strong.
Speaker 6 (07:45):
So I look at, you know, Tech as a team
that should be taken very seriously in the CCHA, and
we'll see what Minnesota.
Speaker 4 (07:55):
Has to, you know, do coming back.
Speaker 7 (07:57):
They have a pretty tough test this weekend Boston College.
Speaker 5 (08:01):
I've been told that Michigan Tech has the best returners
in the CCHA, the best returning upperclassmen, and they're a
team that really should be their come finals time. I
thought the mistake that I saw in the game was
the box score. I thought that the statisticians were in
(08:22):
exhibition mode with four, four and five shots for Minnesota
at home, thirteen total shots thirteen at home. I was like,
that's got to be wrong. Then I looked a couple
places and that was right. Thirty three thirteen. That's a
(08:43):
tough tough pill to swallow if you're Minnesota.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
Another big matchup was a Friday only game and I
got to watch the last half of it, and Jim
you were on the call for that. As number thirteen,
Quinnipiac went on the road to beat number six Boston
College four to three. My impression, Jim and and expand
on this and correct me if need be, was that
Quinnipiac just kind of man handled them a bit.
Speaker 7 (09:08):
I was very oppressed with Quinnipiac.
Speaker 6 (09:11):
I just they played their system and for a team
to be able to do that in the first week
of the regular season, and I know this isn't the
same where we were ten years ago, where if you were.
Speaker 7 (09:21):
Playing on the first day. He didn't have a lot
of practices.
Speaker 6 (09:23):
A lot of these teams have had more time on
ice with coaches than they used to. But they played
a really solid road game in the first first night
of the regular season. Boston College. Let's let's call a
spade a spade whatever. However, the expression is, they've got
some things that they've got holes on this team.
Speaker 4 (09:43):
They lost so much.
Speaker 6 (09:44):
When you're talking about losing Leonard Perrot and Follower to
the NHL, you know you lost your best defenseman to graduation.
Speaker 7 (09:52):
So they've got some big holes to fill.
Speaker 6 (09:55):
I'm sure that there's going to be a little pressure
on some of these players, like the James Hagen types
to produce, you know, but there is enough talent there
that I'm not too concerned. I just I thought that
Quinnipiac played their game.
Speaker 7 (10:10):
They dictated the type of game.
Speaker 6 (10:11):
It was a typical, prototypical Quinnipiac game that wasn't up
and down the ice.
Speaker 4 (10:18):
They bottled up the neutral zone.
Speaker 6 (10:20):
They forced turnovers, they got up ice quick, and they capitalized.
Speaker 5 (10:24):
Another one that I thought was a mistake with the
box score fifteen shots on goal for Boston College, and
to your point, that's where Quinnipiac is at their best.
That's not abnormal for Quinnipiac opponent def. Fifteen, but for
Boston College def.
Speaker 4 (10:40):
Fifteen.
Speaker 5 (10:40):
That was the crazy part, you know, because you think
of all the players that have on.
Speaker 4 (10:46):
They're still going to be fine. They may have goals,
they're still going to be fine.
Speaker 5 (10:49):
There's way too much talent on Boston College to be
worried after one game.
Speaker 4 (10:54):
I will tell you this.
Speaker 5 (10:56):
The difference this year for coaches is eleven days ago,
which would have been two weeks ago today, eleven days
before the start of our first scam, which was Friday.
We were allowed to stay within our eight hours, but
have as much practice in that eight hours as you
can leading up to that. From day one to school
you had it was called it's basically four four hours
(11:19):
of on ice, eight total, So you could do video,
you could do weights, you could do meetings, you could
do all that, but you still can like go on
the ice four top four hours starting that eleven days
before you could use all eight hours on the ice
if you wanted, and no weights. So that's where the
change was. So there was a little bit of flexibility.
(11:40):
So if you went five days one hour day, you
could do that leading up to the game.
Speaker 4 (11:45):
So that's the difference.
Speaker 5 (11:48):
So yes, to your point, they did have a little
bit more time on the ice with them, and that's
kind of the new inner workings of the NCAA, letting
you do a few more things. Like we used to
have a common start date of almost like October one,
where he counted back from the frozen four and you.
Speaker 4 (12:03):
Couldn't even practice. You couldn't even be on the ice
with them.
Speaker 5 (12:06):
Now by the time you're ready to play hockey, they're
tired of practicing, they're tired of you're on the coaches.
Speaker 4 (12:12):
They want to play other teams.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
One other game, one other series to look at was
Colorado College and number ten Yukon. They split the weekend
series CC one on Friday four to two. Yukon got
revenge on Saturday five to one. This is a nice
indicator of teams right about the same level in their
league's contenders, but maybe not the ones seem to be
(12:34):
the top team. And maybe this said some good things
about CC even more than it did about Yeah.
Speaker 6 (12:41):
I was very curious to see the results of this
weekend series because I wanted to see where Chris Marriot's
team is this year. Because I know that this Yukon
team is pretty good. They lost a little bit, particularly
Callum Tung who was really good in net for them,
But in terms of you know what uk As, they
have a good core Joey meldowneiy there, you know, their
(13:04):
leading scorer, leading goal scorer coming back. So I feel
like call out of College by showing well in the
first weekend answers some questions that I had of will
this CC team continue to take steps forward? I think
that they will. I do like Mike Kavanaugh's Team's response
on night two, and that's you know, really critical is
(13:24):
that he can bounce back. Those are those types of
road games that as a coach, I think you lose
that first when you're looking for that good comeback. Bounce
back on Saturday night makes for a much more pleasant
trip home as well.
Speaker 4 (13:40):
New coaching staff with Colorado College.
Speaker 5 (13:42):
Obviously Chris may out there, but they there are some
changes made with their staff. Peter Menino has took a
job at Denver as a fundraiser.
Speaker 4 (13:52):
They brought Paul Pooley in from Jeff Jackson staff.
Speaker 5 (13:55):
That's a lot of experience bringing a name like that
John Dgit State on and then they brought Jordi Murray
in from Joe Shaunstaff. So a couple different ideas coming
from some really good head coaches that originated out of
the up and the Lake State era of Jordi Murray
coming in from Michigan Tech under Joe, and then Paul
(14:18):
Woolley Providence head coach, long long time Notre Dame, unbelievable player.
I think you might see a little bit of stylistic
change with some new coaches there.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
Well, we're going to take a break and come back
with more of weekend review. We're going to talk about
the NPI, the NCAA Power Index. When Weekend Review continues.
(14:51):
We're back with weekend Review. The NCAA made it official
a week ago today, last Monday, when they announced that
the nc THEA Power Index or the NPI, would take
the place of the pair wise beginning this season to
pick the field for the men's NCAA Division One National Tournament.
(15:13):
This has been brewing for a while. There was conversation
about it at the coaches convention in May, and Jim
you had some long conversations about it and wrote some
of the things that we need to know about it
that published last week on uscho dot com. So why
did you kind of give us a capsule summary of
what's going on with that?
Speaker 6 (15:34):
Yeah, you know, I had a chance to talk to
Tim Danahey back in May when a lot of the
rumors swirly after the convention, when we kind of knew
that this was direction, that this was.
Speaker 7 (15:43):
Probably going to go.
Speaker 6 (15:44):
I talked with Tim, and if people don't know the
name Tim Danahey, you know the product. He He ran
the website College hockeystats dot net.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
For a number of years.
Speaker 6 (15:53):
He's the brilliant mind behind a lot of maths that
has really done around the college hockey game and he
has always been advisor to the Men's Committee on the
pairwise and now the NPI. And you know, the one
thing I think I took away from my conversation with
Tim is that there's not a major shift between what
(16:14):
the pairwise did and what.
Speaker 7 (16:15):
The NPI will do.
Speaker 6 (16:18):
The biggest takeaway is that sometimes you can get some
statistical outliers in the old pairwise, those will be taken away,
those will be eliminated. I'll give you the example I
used in my story last week. Last season, it was
Princeton twice beat Ohio State. Because those teams didn't have
(16:41):
any common opponents, those two wins counted as two pairwise
points and one point went to Ohio State for having
that higher RPI. Now, Ohio State was a decidedly better team,
but when you made those comparisons between direct comparison between
Ohio State Princeton, it would tell you that Princeton won
(17:02):
that comparison. So that is a little bit of a
statistical outlier. Because the NPI looks it does not have
head to head as a direct stat that everything that
was factored into the selection in the pair wise is
now a component of one formula that will deliver one number,
(17:24):
and that will be each team's NPI score, I guess
is the word I've used, and then you rank those
scores at the end of the season. The highest would
be the number one seed, all the way to depth
to the bottom. So it's the math behind it is
certainly complicated and it's not something you can quickly understand.
Speaker 7 (17:43):
But at the same time, I think it's pretty simple.
Speaker 6 (17:47):
The one caveat, I will say, and this was what
I took away from all of the coaches I talked
to about this last week. Everyone in schools, you can
weigh in on this. Every one of them said. When
I asked, what are your thoughts on the new NPI,
they all all kind of said the same thing with
the pairwise broken.
Speaker 4 (18:04):
Why did we need this? That's the big question.
Speaker 6 (18:07):
I get that it does feel like this is a
little bit of an NCAA move to standardize.
Speaker 4 (18:14):
They use it across a lot of other sports.
Speaker 6 (18:16):
It's used throughout Division III, the women's division IE hockey
used it last season, So I think that they are
just trying to standardize a lot of the selection across
a lot of their sports. So if you have fan
bases that you go across sports, at least as an
understanding of basic understanding sport to sport, how the postseason
(18:38):
is going to be selected.
Speaker 4 (18:39):
So that's a.
Speaker 7 (18:41):
Really long way of saying that not much has changed.
Speaker 5 (18:44):
Well, I think people have to understand I was on
I got off the committee when when Robert Morris disbanded hockey,
I had to go off the committee. I still had
a year. We were talking about the NPI. Back then,
I always talked about a better math, better math, and
the npiays talked about it, and I think it was
the pair wise that people kind of pushed back and
(19:07):
wanted to keep the pair wise until finally they just
kept going with it. I think it would have changed
a little bit of the tournament this year, maybe one spot,
one team, one order. But we kept coming back to
when I was on the committee, the same thing, and
you said, it really wasn't broken.
Speaker 4 (19:25):
You're always going to.
Speaker 5 (19:26):
Have some sort of statistical issue at least one time.
That being said, this is not something that was thought
about really quickly.
Speaker 4 (19:39):
We talked about the Coaches Convention.
Speaker 5 (19:41):
We talked about we had the NCAA on three or
four conference calls. We had discussion on what the dials were.
Every league got to throw input in. This was a
thought out process. It wasn't hey, let's just do this.
It was step by step by step, and I thought
they'd a really good job of making sure that it
(20:03):
was done the right way and giving coaches a say.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
Whether they want was wet with what they wanted to
go with.
Speaker 5 (20:10):
Everybody had a chance every week had a chance to
give their opinion, and you felt like you were heard
a little bit, even if you didn't really want it
or care about it.
Speaker 6 (20:21):
And I think to that point, Derek, that's a lot
of the reason that we're not seeing a ton of
negative pushback on this because I think all of the
Division one men's institutions were involved in the process. They
understand it. It was well explained. Communication goes a long
way when you're trying to make change, and I think
that this change will get accepted simply for that reason,
(20:44):
the fact that the NCAA made this process inclusive and comprehensive.
So we'll see what it does at the end of
the season, how it changes. Like you said, I think
the last season, I think the teams would have been
the same. There was one or two scenes might have shifted.
That was all. But I don't think that we would
have seen go and will will not see any massive
(21:06):
change is because of this.
Speaker 2 (21:08):
You know.
Speaker 5 (21:08):
It goes back when I was on the rules committee
and we changed we added a penalty kN that you
can't ice the pocket the penalty col and there was
no discussion about it just came out of nowhere and
the uproar was crazy.
Speaker 4 (21:24):
And we eventually went back on it.
Speaker 5 (21:25):
Like you said, they communicated well on this, and I
think everybody is comfortable with it.
Speaker 3 (21:31):
One thing I'm wondering about. One thing I'm wondering about
is whether it's going to be easier or more difficult
to understand what you have to do to get to
where you need to be in the NPI on an
at large. Because the math has a lot of iterations,
they go around and around in cycles till everything gets
(21:52):
calculated and games are going to be dropped off of there.
You may end up with a win in your season
that hurts you NPI ranking so that that win won't
even count in there, and what happens, you know, I
was thinking about this watching Penn State this weekend. It's
good that they had some high level opposition like Arizona State,
(22:14):
but there are quite a few easier games on Guy
Gadowski's schedule. Are those going to be taken off? And
is that going to not help him as much as
it might have. I don't know enough about the math,
but that's one of the things we're going to have
to watch.
Speaker 6 (22:28):
Yeah, And I think that that is what people don't
really understand, and that comes down to the dials that
Derek referenced, and that was something that was worked on.
There are dials, it's parameters, whatever word.
Speaker 4 (22:42):
You want to use.
Speaker 7 (22:43):
That dials is the word that the committee has settled on.
Speaker 6 (22:47):
But those dials will determine and the types of games
that will be dropped, how many games have to be counted.
But you know, I think the example last year in
women's hockey, I think it was Wisconsin literally could have
dropped every one of the games from their schedule. They
had a dominating season and everything would have dropped off
(23:10):
because every win would have negatively impacted their overall score.
But you had to have some sort of a baseline,
so they I believe on the women's side it might
have been ten wins ten games had to be counted.
Speaker 7 (23:23):
The men's it'll be twelve. So there will be a baseline,
But yeh.
Speaker 4 (23:27):
You're right.
Speaker 6 (23:28):
As a coach, I think now you're just really trying
to set up your schedule so that you're playing a
competitive schedule and the teams that beat the best teams
will be rewarded.
Speaker 7 (23:41):
The teams that lose to teams.
Speaker 6 (23:43):
At the bottom will be negatively impacted.
Speaker 7 (23:47):
So I think we'll have.
Speaker 6 (23:49):
To see where all the math goes. That's actually a
place that I can't even keep going. I need computers
to do the math for me. That there's people out
there that can do the math in their head, but
the math is complex at the end. I don't know
that there'll be a lot of differences, but I do
believe I'm going to give the benefit of the doubts
the committee and everybody that I've talked to this is
(24:10):
a better math.
Speaker 3 (24:11):
And you know, one reason there won't be as many
differences is it's probably not that well known. But the
formulas on the RPI and quality win bonuses and so
forth in the past have been adjusted to give results
closer to what the NPI would have given. So that's
(24:31):
one reason we may not see a lot of differences.
One last thing I want to throw in before we
wrap up. This isn't entirely tied to the NPI, but
came as a result of it. The committee, the D
one Men's Ice Hockey Committee, decided that teams with a
sub five hundred record will be eligible for the postseason.
(24:52):
In the past, if you were below five hundred, you
could not be considered for an at large.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
I'm not sure I agree with it.
Speaker 3 (25:00):
What you're saying is, Okay, you play in a tougher league,
but you're the sixth place team in you're going to
get a postseason bid, and in a different league, the
team that maybe just missed out on it came in second,
is not going to have an opportunity. Maybe, you know,
you go back through the past few years, there's one
or two teams, maybe each season where that could have
(25:22):
made a difference and maybe would have meant the top
six teams in one of the power leagues would have
gotten in.
Speaker 2 (25:30):
I'm not so sure I like that. We'll see how
it boils down.
Speaker 4 (25:34):
My commentary to that.
Speaker 6 (25:37):
I don't disagree with you there, and I think we'll
really start to hear some negative feedback the day that
you see a team that's is fifteen and eight fifteen eighteen.
Speaker 4 (25:51):
And three or whatever it is. I'm not even sure
I had the right number of games in there.
Speaker 6 (25:55):
But a team like that get in, and then a
team that's in say Atlantic Hockey or or the CCHA
not getting in with only eight or nine losses on
their schedule, that's when I think we'll really see.
Speaker 4 (26:06):
Some sort of a pushback.
Speaker 5 (26:09):
And it wouldn't be a show about Ed having a
gripe about something new.
Speaker 3 (26:13):
You know, I spend all weekend thinking of things to
gripe about. Well with that will wrap up, but I
do want to let you know, look forward to our
new Wednesday mini podcast upon further review.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
Is the new episode.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
We'll hit on one topic and bat it around a little bit.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
Look for that on Wednesday.
Speaker 3 (26:35):
For Jim Connolly, for Derek Schooley, I'm Ed Trefsker and
this has been us Echo Weekend Review.
Usccho dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Welcome to us.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
CHO Weekend review for Monday, October sixth, twenty twenty five.
I met Trevsker alongside Jim Connolly and Derek Schooley. Gentlemen,
we're back together again for.
Speaker 4 (00:27):
Unlucky you guys, Lucky you guys. I'm just impressed. Jimmy
looks like half of a person.
Speaker 5 (00:33):
What a what a great look that he's got with
his weight lots journey.
Speaker 4 (00:39):
Congratulations Jimmy.
Speaker 6 (00:40):
Yeah, hey, that's nice to say. But I'm just excited
to see pucks and some skating and so some great
hockey we go, and we've got plenty of it this weekend.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (00:51):
The season started, the puck dropped with one of the
biggest matchups at a Top twenty matchup right in the
first weekend, and also maybe a preview of college hockey
post COCHL eligibility and the series that was on everybody's
docket and for a lot of people watching on NHL
(01:13):
Network had Penn State at Arizona State, and that really
didn't disappoint. I was watching on Friday night and you
see Gavin McKenna get assists on the first two goals
and things were getting pretty excited.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Number five.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
Penn State had to come back though both games in
the third period. They were down three to two on
Friday one sixty three and came back to win four
to two on Saturday. And McKenna got the game winning
goal on the power play on Saturday along with those
two assists on Friday, and also saluted the student section
(01:49):
at Arizona State. So it looks like he's going to
be fun on the ice and kind of that peripheral
stuff too.
Speaker 5 (01:56):
I think the one thing that we I don't unders
think that we understood how big this is going to
be for college hockey. That's the one like YouTube, NHL Network,
basically a whole pregame show on the NHL Network about it,
the hype, all of that, and this was really really
(02:18):
good for the college hockey game. Obviously, everybody's got their
opinions on the CHL coming into NCAA.
Speaker 4 (02:25):
It's not going away. So this hype was huge.
Speaker 5 (02:29):
Over thirty plus NHL scouts there to watch the one game.
I mean, if you're a bottom level team, you should
have probably had two guys there. I mean, this is big,
and this is the hype that college hockey's gonna get
and that we want, But does it really signify some
classes in college hockey. That's the scary thing because does
(02:52):
that make the top up here in the bottom down there?
Speaker 4 (02:55):
And that's the scary thing of the hype of this. Yeah,
I agree with.
Speaker 6 (02:59):
You their schools, But I feel like that's the conversation
we've been having for five years now, and we keep saying, oh, well,
this is really going to.
Speaker 4 (03:07):
Favor the big schools. It's really going to favor the
big schools.
Speaker 6 (03:09):
Let's just go back to who's won the national championships
in the last few years, not the big school So
maybe we can take another step back and say this
is great for college hockey. But I still think we're
going to have a competitive product out there. I loved
watching the Gavin McKenna show Friday and Saturday night, and
I got I didn't work on Saturday, so I had
the whole night to watch that game. What an awesome
(03:33):
just the whole presentation of you know, NHL Network giving
its studio support, putting their guys between periods, not just
going to NHL stuff between periods. I thought that that
proves that college hockey has just arrived on a whole
new level.
Speaker 7 (03:47):
That it was last season. That's a great thing.
Speaker 6 (03:49):
Hey, the product is awesome, you know, watching a guy
like Gavin mckenner out there watching Ryder Ritchie at Boston University.
Speaker 7 (03:59):
These are guys, these are name players now.
Speaker 6 (04:02):
That are in college hockey that we might not have
seen a few years back. This is the best product
we have seen in a long time.
Speaker 5 (04:10):
Is this the biggest debut since Paul Korea, Jack Eigel?
Speaker 4 (04:16):
I mean, this is there. You're talking superstars, and.
Speaker 6 (04:19):
I think I think Igles a really good comp there,
you know, and he he had all of that. Maybe
Aiden h mattlan Celabrini too, but even I don't I
don't know that he had the same hype that m
McKenna comes with something different because he's the first, because
he is the first high profile CHL player to leave
(04:40):
that league come into college hockey. That's what makes him
so special. And it's really going to touch fire, and
we saw it this weekend.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
The one thing that was disappointing to me, and I
saw a lot of chatter about it on social media,
was the technical quality of the broadcast. The camera wasn't great.
It was kind of too bright and washed out. That's
something that needs to be work done, because I know
there are NHL quality broadcasts being done in college hockey,
(05:11):
and I don't know if they had a problem that
evening or what that was the only thing. And maybe
that's nitpicking a bit about what was really exciting hockey.
And let's not overlook that Arizona State's a very very
good team too.
Speaker 6 (05:24):
You know, I want to address the first part that
you said there at and I actually see a positive
from the CHL and mckennay and stuff like that, and
these big steps forward that college hockey is going to take.
Speaker 7 (05:37):
It's going to force more schools to invest.
Speaker 6 (05:41):
It's what we saw at smaller schools in college football
and basketball ten years ago when streaming became big in
schools then invested tons.
Speaker 4 (05:51):
Of money into making sure that their streaming product was good.
Speaker 6 (05:54):
Because eyeballs are out there now, If eyeballs are going
to be on their hockey games that are SLASH on
an online channel like NCAC dot TV, because that broadcast
is going to be simultast on a national network, I
think that that can just up the product more. I
think everything we have just seen in one weekend, I
(06:16):
don't know that I've come away from the first weekend
of a college hockey season feeling dispositive about the growth.
Speaker 4 (06:22):
Of the sport and the scheduling.
Speaker 5 (06:25):
How do you have the Penn State schedules are done
so early and this would have just been a regular schedule.
Imagine if Smith wasn't sick. I mean, this could have
been even a big, bigger event. I mean, that's where
it's gone. College hockey's in for a one year.
Speaker 4 (06:43):
I think.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
Well, another big game, a big series over the weekend
had number eight Minnesota hosting Michigan Tech. The Golden Gophers
had to come from behind to win on Friday, couldn't
do it. On Saturday, Tech got the upset five to three,
with the final four goals scored by Michigan Tech. First
(07:04):
win in Michigan Tech for Bill Muccault. I guess good
stuff for Michigan Tech. And maybe maybe the Gophers ought
to be a little anxious.
Speaker 6 (07:16):
They easily could have been swept in that weekend series
right there. You know, there were good things that I
think Bob Monscro's team did this weekend, but that easily
could have been a sweep if it wasn't for a
good third period on Friday night and in Saturday. You know,
I think that Minnesota just believed that they would be
able to make that same comeback again on Saturday night,
(07:40):
and that's when when Bill McColl's team just locked down.
Speaker 4 (07:43):
I thought that that third period they played was strong.
Speaker 6 (07:45):
So I look at, you know, Tech as a team
that should be taken very seriously in the CCHA, and
we'll see what Minnesota.
Speaker 4 (07:55):
Has to, you know, do coming back.
Speaker 7 (07:57):
They have a pretty tough test this weekend Boston College.
Speaker 5 (08:01):
I've been told that Michigan Tech has the best returners
in the CCHA, the best returning upperclassmen, and they're a
team that really should be their come finals time. I
thought the mistake that I saw in the game was
the box score. I thought that the statisticians were in
(08:22):
exhibition mode with four, four and five shots for Minnesota
at home, thirteen total shots thirteen at home. I was like,
that's got to be wrong. Then I looked a couple
places and that was right. Thirty three thirteen. That's a
(08:43):
tough tough pill to swallow if you're Minnesota.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
Another big matchup was a Friday only game and I
got to watch the last half of it, and Jim
you were on the call for that. As number thirteen,
Quinnipiac went on the road to beat number six Boston
College four to three. My impression, Jim and and expand
on this and correct me if need be, was that
Quinnipiac just kind of man handled them a bit.
Speaker 7 (09:08):
I was very oppressed with Quinnipiac.
Speaker 6 (09:11):
I just they played their system and for a team
to be able to do that in the first week
of the regular season, and I know this isn't the
same where we were ten years ago, where if you were.
Speaker 7 (09:21):
Playing on the first day. He didn't have a lot
of practices.
Speaker 6 (09:23):
A lot of these teams have had more time on
ice with coaches than they used to. But they played
a really solid road game in the first first night
of the regular season. Boston College. Let's let's call a
spade a spade whatever. However, the expression is, they've got
some things that they've got holes on this team.
Speaker 4 (09:43):
They lost so much.
Speaker 6 (09:44):
When you're talking about losing Leonard Perrot and Follower to
the NHL, you know you lost your best defenseman to graduation.
Speaker 7 (09:52):
So they've got some big holes to fill.
Speaker 6 (09:55):
I'm sure that there's going to be a little pressure
on some of these players, like the James Hagen types
to produce, you know, but there is enough talent there
that I'm not too concerned. I just I thought that
Quinnipiac played their game.
Speaker 7 (10:10):
They dictated the type of game.
Speaker 6 (10:11):
It was a typical, prototypical Quinnipiac game that wasn't up
and down the ice.
Speaker 4 (10:18):
They bottled up the neutral zone.
Speaker 6 (10:20):
They forced turnovers, they got up ice quick, and they capitalized.
Speaker 5 (10:24):
Another one that I thought was a mistake with the
box score fifteen shots on goal for Boston College, and
to your point, that's where Quinnipiac is at their best.
That's not abnormal for Quinnipiac opponent def. Fifteen, but for
Boston College def.
Speaker 4 (10:40):
Fifteen.
Speaker 5 (10:40):
That was the crazy part, you know, because you think
of all the players that have on.
Speaker 4 (10:46):
They're still going to be fine. They may have goals,
they're still going to be fine.
Speaker 5 (10:49):
There's way too much talent on Boston College to be
worried after one game.
Speaker 4 (10:54):
I will tell you this.
Speaker 5 (10:56):
The difference this year for coaches is eleven days ago,
which would have been two weeks ago today, eleven days
before the start of our first scam, which was Friday.
We were allowed to stay within our eight hours, but
have as much practice in that eight hours as you
can leading up to that. From day one to school
you had it was called it's basically four four hours
(11:19):
of on ice, eight total, So you could do video,
you could do weights, you could do meetings, you could
do all that, but you still can like go on
the ice four top four hours starting that eleven days
before you could use all eight hours on the ice
if you wanted, and no weights. So that's where the
change was. So there was a little bit of flexibility.
(11:40):
So if you went five days one hour day, you
could do that leading up to the game.
Speaker 4 (11:45):
So that's the difference.
Speaker 5 (11:48):
So yes, to your point, they did have a little
bit more time on the ice with them, and that's
kind of the new inner workings of the NCAA, letting
you do a few more things. Like we used to
have a common start date of almost like October one,
where he counted back from the frozen four and you.
Speaker 4 (12:03):
Couldn't even practice. You couldn't even be on the ice
with them.
Speaker 5 (12:06):
Now by the time you're ready to play hockey, they're
tired of practicing, they're tired of you're on the coaches.
Speaker 4 (12:12):
They want to play other teams.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
One other game, one other series to look at was
Colorado College and number ten Yukon. They split the weekend
series CC one on Friday four to two. Yukon got
revenge on Saturday five to one. This is a nice
indicator of teams right about the same level in their
league's contenders, but maybe not the ones seem to be
(12:34):
the top team. And maybe this said some good things
about CC even more than it did about Yeah.
Speaker 6 (12:41):
I was very curious to see the results of this
weekend series because I wanted to see where Chris Marriot's
team is this year. Because I know that this Yukon
team is pretty good. They lost a little bit, particularly
Callum Tung who was really good in net for them,
But in terms of you know what uk As, they
have a good core Joey meldowneiy there, you know, their
(13:04):
leading scorer, leading goal scorer coming back. So I feel
like call out of College by showing well in the
first weekend answers some questions that I had of will
this CC team continue to take steps forward? I think
that they will. I do like Mike Kavanaugh's Team's response
on night two, and that's you know, really critical is
(13:24):
that he can bounce back. Those are those types of
road games that as a coach, I think you lose
that first when you're looking for that good comeback. Bounce
back on Saturday night makes for a much more pleasant
trip home as well.
Speaker 4 (13:40):
New coaching staff with Colorado College.
Speaker 5 (13:42):
Obviously Chris may out there, but they there are some
changes made with their staff. Peter Menino has took a
job at Denver as a fundraiser.
Speaker 4 (13:52):
They brought Paul Pooley in from Jeff Jackson staff.
Speaker 5 (13:55):
That's a lot of experience bringing a name like that
John Dgit State on and then they brought Jordi Murray
in from Joe Shaunstaff. So a couple different ideas coming
from some really good head coaches that originated out of
the up and the Lake State era of Jordi Murray
coming in from Michigan Tech under Joe, and then Paul
(14:18):
Woolley Providence head coach, long long time Notre Dame, unbelievable player.
I think you might see a little bit of stylistic
change with some new coaches there.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
Well, we're going to take a break and come back
with more of weekend review. We're going to talk about
the NPI, the NCAA Power Index. When Weekend Review continues.
(14:51):
We're back with weekend Review. The NCAA made it official
a week ago today, last Monday, when they announced that
the nc THEA Power Index or the NPI, would take
the place of the pair wise beginning this season to
pick the field for the men's NCAA Division One National Tournament.
(15:13):
This has been brewing for a while. There was conversation
about it at the coaches convention in May, and Jim
you had some long conversations about it and wrote some
of the things that we need to know about it
that published last week on uscho dot com. So why
did you kind of give us a capsule summary of
what's going on with that?
Speaker 6 (15:34):
Yeah, you know, I had a chance to talk to
Tim Danahey back in May when a lot of the
rumors swirly after the convention, when we kind of knew
that this was direction, that this was.
Speaker 7 (15:43):
Probably going to go.
Speaker 6 (15:44):
I talked with Tim, and if people don't know the
name Tim Danahey, you know the product. He He ran
the website College hockeystats dot net.
Speaker 4 (15:51):
For a number of years.
Speaker 6 (15:53):
He's the brilliant mind behind a lot of maths that
has really done around the college hockey game and he
has always been advisor to the Men's Committee on the
pairwise and now the NPI. And you know, the one
thing I think I took away from my conversation with
Tim is that there's not a major shift between what
(16:14):
the pairwise did and what.
Speaker 7 (16:15):
The NPI will do.
Speaker 6 (16:18):
The biggest takeaway is that sometimes you can get some
statistical outliers in the old pairwise, those will be taken away,
those will be eliminated. I'll give you the example I
used in my story last week. Last season, it was
Princeton twice beat Ohio State. Because those teams didn't have
(16:41):
any common opponents, those two wins counted as two pairwise
points and one point went to Ohio State for having
that higher RPI. Now, Ohio State was a decidedly better team,
but when you made those comparisons between direct comparison between
Ohio State Princeton, it would tell you that Princeton won
(17:02):
that comparison. So that is a little bit of a
statistical outlier. Because the NPI looks it does not have
head to head as a direct stat that everything that
was factored into the selection in the pair wise is
now a component of one formula that will deliver one number,
(17:24):
and that will be each team's NPI score, I guess
is the word I've used, and then you rank those
scores at the end of the season. The highest would
be the number one seed, all the way to depth
to the bottom. So it's the math behind it is
certainly complicated and it's not something you can quickly understand.
Speaker 7 (17:43):
But at the same time, I think it's pretty simple.
Speaker 6 (17:47):
The one caveat, I will say, and this was what
I took away from all of the coaches I talked
to about this last week. Everyone in schools, you can
weigh in on this. Every one of them said. When
I asked, what are your thoughts on the new NPI,
they all all kind of said the same thing with
the pairwise broken.
Speaker 4 (18:04):
Why did we need this? That's the big question.
Speaker 6 (18:07):
I get that it does feel like this is a
little bit of an NCAA move to standardize.
Speaker 4 (18:14):
They use it across a lot of other sports.
Speaker 6 (18:16):
It's used throughout Division III, the women's division IE hockey
used it last season, So I think that they are
just trying to standardize a lot of the selection across
a lot of their sports. So if you have fan
bases that you go across sports, at least as an
understanding of basic understanding sport to sport, how the postseason
(18:38):
is going to be selected.
Speaker 4 (18:39):
So that's a.
Speaker 7 (18:41):
Really long way of saying that not much has changed.
Speaker 5 (18:44):
Well, I think people have to understand I was on
I got off the committee when when Robert Morris disbanded hockey,
I had to go off the committee. I still had
a year. We were talking about the NPI. Back then,
I always talked about a better math, better math, and
the npiays talked about it, and I think it was
the pair wise that people kind of pushed back and
(19:07):
wanted to keep the pair wise until finally they just
kept going with it. I think it would have changed
a little bit of the tournament this year, maybe one spot,
one team, one order. But we kept coming back to
when I was on the committee, the same thing, and
you said, it really wasn't broken.
Speaker 4 (19:25):
You're always going to.
Speaker 5 (19:26):
Have some sort of statistical issue at least one time.
That being said, this is not something that was thought
about really quickly.
Speaker 4 (19:39):
We talked about the Coaches Convention.
Speaker 5 (19:41):
We talked about we had the NCAA on three or
four conference calls. We had discussion on what the dials were.
Every league got to throw input in. This was a
thought out process. It wasn't hey, let's just do this.
It was step by step by step, and I thought
they'd a really good job of making sure that it
(20:03):
was done the right way and giving coaches a say.
Speaker 4 (20:07):
Whether they want was wet with what they wanted to
go with.
Speaker 5 (20:10):
Everybody had a chance every week had a chance to
give their opinion, and you felt like you were heard
a little bit, even if you didn't really want it
or care about it.
Speaker 6 (20:21):
And I think to that point, Derek, that's a lot
of the reason that we're not seeing a ton of
negative pushback on this because I think all of the
Division one men's institutions were involved in the process. They
understand it. It was well explained. Communication goes a long
way when you're trying to make change, and I think
that this change will get accepted simply for that reason,
(20:44):
the fact that the NCAA made this process inclusive and comprehensive.
So we'll see what it does at the end of
the season, how it changes. Like you said, I think
the last season, I think the teams would have been
the same. There was one or two scenes might have shifted.
That was all. But I don't think that we would
have seen go and will will not see any massive
(21:06):
change is because of this.
Speaker 2 (21:08):
You know.
Speaker 5 (21:08):
It goes back when I was on the rules committee
and we changed we added a penalty kN that you
can't ice the pocket the penalty col and there was
no discussion about it just came out of nowhere and
the uproar was crazy.
Speaker 4 (21:24):
And we eventually went back on it.
Speaker 5 (21:25):
Like you said, they communicated well on this, and I
think everybody is comfortable with it.
Speaker 3 (21:31):
One thing I'm wondering about. One thing I'm wondering about
is whether it's going to be easier or more difficult
to understand what you have to do to get to
where you need to be in the NPI on an
at large. Because the math has a lot of iterations,
they go around and around in cycles till everything gets
(21:52):
calculated and games are going to be dropped off of there.
You may end up with a win in your season
that hurts you NPI ranking so that that win won't
even count in there, and what happens, you know, I
was thinking about this watching Penn State this weekend. It's
good that they had some high level opposition like Arizona State,
(22:14):
but there are quite a few easier games on Guy
Gadowski's schedule. Are those going to be taken off? And
is that going to not help him as much as
it might have. I don't know enough about the math,
but that's one of the things we're going to have
to watch.
Speaker 6 (22:28):
Yeah, And I think that that is what people don't
really understand, and that comes down to the dials that
Derek referenced, and that was something that was worked on.
There are dials, it's parameters, whatever word.
Speaker 4 (22:42):
You want to use.
Speaker 7 (22:43):
That dials is the word that the committee has settled on.
Speaker 6 (22:47):
But those dials will determine and the types of games
that will be dropped, how many games have to be counted.
But you know, I think the example last year in
women's hockey, I think it was Wisconsin literally could have
dropped every one of the games from their schedule. They
had a dominating season and everything would have dropped off
(23:10):
because every win would have negatively impacted their overall score.
But you had to have some sort of a baseline,
so they I believe on the women's side it might
have been ten wins ten games had to be counted.
Speaker 7 (23:23):
The men's it'll be twelve. So there will be a baseline,
But yeh.
Speaker 4 (23:27):
You're right.
Speaker 6 (23:28):
As a coach, I think now you're just really trying
to set up your schedule so that you're playing a
competitive schedule and the teams that beat the best teams
will be rewarded.
Speaker 7 (23:41):
The teams that lose to teams.
Speaker 6 (23:43):
At the bottom will be negatively impacted.
Speaker 7 (23:47):
So I think we'll have.
Speaker 6 (23:49):
To see where all the math goes. That's actually a
place that I can't even keep going. I need computers
to do the math for me. That there's people out
there that can do the math in their head, but
the math is complex at the end. I don't know
that there'll be a lot of differences, but I do
believe I'm going to give the benefit of the doubts
the committee and everybody that I've talked to this is
(24:10):
a better math.
Speaker 3 (24:11):
And you know, one reason there won't be as many
differences is it's probably not that well known. But the
formulas on the RPI and quality win bonuses and so
forth in the past have been adjusted to give results
closer to what the NPI would have given. So that's
(24:31):
one reason we may not see a lot of differences.
One last thing I want to throw in before we
wrap up. This isn't entirely tied to the NPI, but
came as a result of it. The committee, the D
one Men's Ice Hockey Committee, decided that teams with a
sub five hundred record will be eligible for the postseason.
(24:52):
In the past, if you were below five hundred, you
could not be considered for an at large.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
I'm not sure I agree with it.
Speaker 3 (25:00):
What you're saying is, Okay, you play in a tougher league,
but you're the sixth place team in you're going to
get a postseason bid, and in a different league, the
team that maybe just missed out on it came in second,
is not going to have an opportunity. Maybe, you know,
you go back through the past few years, there's one
or two teams, maybe each season where that could have
(25:22):
made a difference and maybe would have meant the top
six teams in one of the power leagues would have
gotten in.
Speaker 2 (25:30):
I'm not so sure I like that. We'll see how
it boils down.
Speaker 4 (25:34):
My commentary to that.
Speaker 6 (25:37):
I don't disagree with you there, and I think we'll
really start to hear some negative feedback the day that
you see a team that's is fifteen and eight fifteen eighteen.
Speaker 4 (25:51):
And three or whatever it is. I'm not even sure
I had the right number of games in there.
Speaker 6 (25:55):
But a team like that get in, and then a
team that's in say Atlantic Hockey or or the CCHA
not getting in with only eight or nine losses on
their schedule, that's when I think we'll really see.
Speaker 4 (26:06):
Some sort of a pushback.
Speaker 5 (26:09):
And it wouldn't be a show about Ed having a
gripe about something new.
Speaker 3 (26:13):
You know, I spend all weekend thinking of things to
gripe about. Well with that will wrap up, but I
do want to let you know, look forward to our
new Wednesday mini podcast upon further review.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
Is the new episode.
Speaker 3 (26:30):
We'll hit on one topic and bat it around a little bit.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
Look for that on Wednesday.
Speaker 3 (26:35):
For Jim Connolly, for Derek Schooley, I'm Ed Trefsker and
this has been us Echo Weekend Review.
Popular Podcasts
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com